He devised a scheme to get pro-lifers jailed for a decade. Is he now being called to account?

The attorney who devised the strategy behind a series of high-profile prosecutions against pro-life advocates under the Biden administration has been asked to appear before the House Judiciary Committee (HJC). 

According to a recent HJC press release, Sanjay Patel is one of eight Department of Justice (DOJ) officials requested “to testify about the DOJ’s misconduct and weaponization during the Biden-Harris Administration.” 

Under the Biden administration, the number of federal prosecutions against pro-life advocates skyrocketed, leading many to conclude that Biden’s DOJ disproportionately and unfairly targeted pro-life Americans. 

Patel played a pivotal role in advancing these unprecedented prosecutorial efforts. He resurrected a law 150+ years old that was crafted to combat Ku Klux Klan crimes and used it to exponentially extend prison sentences for non-violent pro-life activists. That law originally sought to curtail civil rights violations against a vulnerable population; ironically, pro-life advocates attempting to achieve the same goal within a different context fell prey to Patel’s scheme to twist the law into a weapon against them.

Now, members of the House Judiciary Committee appear to have asked Patel to explain his actions.

Patel’s Novel Strategy

Sanjay Patel has been a federal prosecutor in the criminal section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division since January 2011. A search of the DOJ’s website suggests that Patel has primarily prosecuted law enforcement officials and pro-lifers during his tenure in that role. 

According to his self-penned bio, he has also “served as the Director of the Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers.” Although the stated aim of the task force is to prosecute incidents of “clinic violence,” its list of recent cases includes several in which no actual violence occurred.

In March 2022, the DOJ’s Journal of Law and Practice published an article written by Patel titled “FACE Off with Anti-Abortion Extremism—Criminal Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE Act).” 

The article provides historical context for and a legal explanation of the FACE Act, which prohibits the physical obstruction of abortion facilities, pregnancy centers, and places of worship. It also prohibits intentional property damage at those locations and the intimidation of or interference with individuals engaged in obtaining or providing related services or attempting to exercise their religious rights.

In the article, Patel outlined a novel strategy for prosecuting pro-lifers who have engaged in activism at abortion facilities. Suggesting that the statutory penalties allowed by the FACE Act are insufficient because “Unless bodily injury or death results, the FACE Act does not have felony penalties,” Patel proposed:

Because other applicable statu[t]es may provide stronger penalties, prosecutors should consider charging other federal offenses in addition to FACE Act violations. …

FACE Act violations are often planned and coordinated offenses that involve more than one subject. In those situations, the investigations may reveal evidence that support[s] conspiracy charges in addition to the underlying offense.

Patel further suggested: “​​Although criminal conspiracy offenses are usually charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371, a conspiracy to commit a FACE Act offense should be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 241 — conspiracy against rights.”

READ: How Roe’s reversal triggered the Biden-Harris DOJ’s persecution of peaceful pro-lifers

Patel argued that “conspiracy against rights” charges are a superior option because they have “three advantages” over conspiracy charges under section 371:

First, unlike a section 371 conspiracy, a section 241 conspiracy conviction is always a felony, even when the underlying substantive violation would be a misdemeanor. Second, section 241 violations are punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment; or up to life or the death penalty, if certain aggravators apply. And third, under section 241, the government is not required to prove an overt act or substantial step in furtherance of the agreement [emphases added].

In other words, Patel advocated for applying “conspiracy against rights” charges because they facilitate more extreme penalties for pro-life activism than what the FACE Act intended and because no action by the accused is necessary to prove a conspiracy—all that need be proven is that the “conspirators” engaged in the same thoughtcrime.

“Conspiracy Against Rights”: Background, Context, and Timeline

Section 241 originates from the Enforcement Act of 1870, which was a response to the Ku Klux Klan’s efforts — including murder — to prevent Black Americans from exercising their civil rights during the Reconstruction era.

Patel not only crafted the strategy to apply the 150-year-old law to thwart modern efforts to achieve the same goal — namely, protecting the civil rights of a vulnerable population routinely targeted for murder — but he also personally prosecuted many of the pro-lifers pursued by Biden’s DOJ.

Those cases were not prosecuted in a civic vacuum. The timeline of events suggests the string of FACE charges filed by Biden’s DOJ — particularly those paired with “conspiracy against rights” — was a direct response to the fall of Roe v. Wade.

On December 1, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ultimately overturned Roe. As early as that day, statements made during oral arguments led many journalists and SCOTUS pundits to conclude that the Court seemed inclined to overturn Roe.

On March 30, 2022 — just shy of four months later — nine pro-life advocates were indicted on conspiracy against rights and FACE Act charges for activism that took place in October 2020. Another individual was later indicted on the same charges in relation to the same incident.

This was the first time pro-life advocates had ever been charged with “conspiracy against rights.”

On May 2, 2022, a draft of the Dobbs decision indicating the Court would overturn Roe was leaked to Politico. On June 24, the decision was officially handed down.

On September 23, 2022, just three months later, Mark Houck was indicted on FACE charges for an incident that occurred almost a year beforehand, in October 2021. 

On September 29, 2022, Christopher Moscinski, better known as Father Fidelis, was indicted on FACE charges for actions undertaken in July. 

On October 5, 2022, 11 pro-lifers were indicted on FACE and conspiracy against rights charges stemming from activism conducted in March 2021. 

On December 16, 2022, two pro-lifers were indicted both for violating and conspiring to violate the FACE Act following activism conducted 2.5 years earlier, in June 2020. 

And in February 2023, eight pro-lifers were indicted on FACE and conspiracy against rights charges for activism which also took place 2.5 years prior, in August 2020.

False Definitions and Farcical “Justice”

Patel personally prosecuted 10 of these pro-lifers. His name appears on the indictments for an additional 12. Almost all of those charged with FACE violations by Biden’s DOJ were convicted; some were sentenced to spend multiple years in federal prison.

The fact that these individuals were not federally charged for their alleged crimes until months and even years after the fact—not until Roe was either clearly threatened or officially overturned—is noteworthy. 

Attorney Aaron Mysliwiec, who represented two FACE defendants, observed: “It seems clear from the tea leaves that … [the] DOJ decided in the wake of Dobbs to search out and prosecute a number of cases that they thought were FACE Act violations, whereas before Dobbs, they didn’t view them as serious enough to prosecute.” 

Ironically, none of the cases in which a “conspiracy against rights” was alleged were tried until after the Supreme Court had corrected Roe, which manufactured the false “right” to abortion. 

But just as stretching the definition of “violence” to encompass non-violence and unjustly punish pro-lifers has been a hallmark of Patel’s career, he has also predicated many of his attacks against pro-lifers upon an erroneous definition of what constitutes a “right.”

It would appear that the tide is turning, however. Those who were convicted of FACE violations and “conspiracy against rights” by Biden’s DOJ have been subsequently pardoned by President Trump. But as the president himself said, they should never have been prosecuted in the first place. 

Congress has already taken steps to investigate why these events occurred and to prevent future recurrence. The latest of these efforts is the request for testimony from the main actors responsible for promulgating this injustice — including Sanjay Patel.

How he might attempt to explain his actions remains to be seen.